Open Stack

I've been following this discussion from a safe distance on the mailing
list, and I just caught up on the IRC conversation as well.

It was my understanding that if a project had tests that were going to be
run for the purposes of determination whether something met the standards of
"OpenStack Powered Databases" (TBD), then those tests would reside in the
tempest repository. Any other tempest tests that the project would have for
any purpose (or purposes) should, I understand, be moved into an independent
repository per the Queens community goal[1].

I'm particularly interested in having this matter decided in an email thread
such as this one because of the comment in IRC about a verbal discussion at
the forum not being considered to be a 'binding decision' [2]. It had been
my understanding that the forum and the PTG were places where 'decisions'
were made, but if that is not the case, I'm hoping that one will be
documented as part of this thread and formalized (maybe) with a resolution
by the TC or the Interop/DefCore body?

-amrith


[1]
https://governance.openstack.org/tc/goals/queens/split-tempest-plugins.html
[2]
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-dev/%23openstack-dev.201
7-05-31.log.html#t2017-05-31T15:39:33

--
Amrith Kumar
amrith.kumar at gmail.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Stanley [mailto:fungi at yuggoth.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 12:24 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
<openstack-
> dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [qa][tc][all] Tempest to reject trademark
tests
> 
> On 2017-05-31 17:18:54 +0100 (+0100), Graham Hayes wrote:
> [...]
> > Trademark programs are trademark programs - we should have a unified
> > process for all of them. Let's not make the same mistakes again by
> > creating classes of projects / programs. I do not want this to be a
> > distinction as we move forward.
> 
> This I agree with. However I'll be surprised if a majority of the QA team
> disagree on this point (logistic concerns with how to curate this over
time I
> can understand, but that just means they need to interest some people in
> working on a manageable solution).
> --
> Jeremy Stanley